# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 6- 39 58

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

W al te r Jo ne s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa - W at erl oo

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Octo be r 16 , 20 17 Fil ed : Dec em

be r 7, 2 01 7 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , GRUENDER and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

W al te r Jo ne s ap pe al s hi s 27 -m on th se nt en ce im po se d fo ll owi ng hi s pl ea of
gu il ty to be in g an un la wfu l dr ug us er in po ss es si on of a fir earm

. Jo ne s co nt en ds th atth e di st ric t co ur t erre d in ap pl y in g a fo ur -l ev el se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en t un de r 1
U.S.S.G. § 2K2 .1(b )(6 )(B) fo r po ss es si ng a fir earm in co nn ect io n wit h an ot he r fel on y of fen se

. Sp eci fic al ly, Jo ne s arg ue s t h a t th e en ha nc em en t im pe rm is si bl y do ub le

co un te d h i s of

fen se co nd uc t an d vi ol at es th e Ex Po st Fact o Cl au se of th e Uni te d St at es Co ns ti tu ti on . He al so arg ue s th at hi s se nt en ce is su bs t a n ti ve ly u nr eas on ab le

. W e aff irm.

I. Bac kg ro un d Jo ne s pl ead ed gu il ty to be in g an un la wfu l dr ug us er in po ss es si on of a fir earm , in vi ol at io n o f 1 8 U

. S .C. § 92 2( g) (3 ). The pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t (PSR )

reco m m en de d a fo ur -le ve l en ha nc em en t un de r U.S.S.G. § 2K2 .1(b )(6 )(B)
, whi ch
pr ov id es th at “ [i]f th e de fen da nt

. . . us ed or po ss es se d an y fir earm or am m un it io n in

co nn ect io n wit h an ot he r fel on y of fen se ; or po ss es se d or tra ns ferr ed an y fir earm or

am m un it io n wi t h kn owl ed ge , in te nt , or reas on to be li ev e th at it wou ld be us ed or po ss es se d in co nn ect io n wit h an ot he r fel on y of fen se , in crea se by 4 le ve ls .” The PSR fo un d th at Jo ne s “ po ss es se d th e fir e a r m i n c o nn ect io n wit h th e fel on y of fen se of Carr y in g W eap on s, in vi ol at io n of Io wa Co de Sect io n 7 2 4

. 4 (1 ).” Pres en te nc e In ve st ig at io n Rep or t at 5, ¶ 11 , Uni te d St at es v. Jo ne s , N o

. 6: 11 -cr- 02 01 4- LRR-2 (N.D. Io wa Ju ly 29 , 20 16 ), ECF No. 15 3. Acco rd in g to th e PSR, “ [t]he pa rti es ag reed
to li ti ga te whe th er a 4- le ve l in crea se ap pl ie s pu rs ua nt to USSG § 2K2 .1(b )(6 )(B) .” Id

. at 3, ¶ 3 B.

In hi s se nt en ci ng m em or an du m , Jo ne s arg ue d th at ap pl ic at i o n of th e

en ha nc em en t wou ld co ns ti tu te im pe rm is si bl e do ub le co un ti ng an d wou ld vi ol at e th e Ex Po st Fact o Cl au se

. Sen te nc in g Mem or an du m By Defen da nt at 1– 2, Uni te d St at es

v. Jo ne s , No. 6: 11 -cr- 02 01 4- LRR-2 (N.D. Io wa Aug

. 25 , 20 16 ), ECF No. 15 9. Sp eci fic al ly, Jo ne s arg ue d th at Uni te d St at es v. W al ker
, 77 1 F.3 d 44 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ),

The Hon or ab le Lin da R. Rea de
, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Nor th ern 1 Dis tri ct of I owa

. -2

-“ was wro ng ly de ci de d an d is in fact do ub le co un ti ng as th e ho ld in g sc or es th e of fen se

an d th e in te gr at ed of

fen se of Carr y in g W eap on s in vi ol at io n of Io wa Co de § 72 4.4 (1 )

as an en ha nc em en t wit hi n th e USSG.” Id

. at 1. Fu rth erm or e, Jo ne s arg ue d th at

“ W al ker no w in 20 16 pr ov id es a m or e se ve re pu ni sh m en t th an th e USSG di d fo r th e de fen da nt ba ck in 20 11 .” Id

. at 2. Jo ne s as se rte d th at “ W al ker ha s th e fo rce an d effe ct of an y la w an d as su ch is a vi ol at io n of the Ex Pos t Fact o Cl au se to [h im ]. ” Id

. at 4. Jo ne s al so req ue st ed a do wnwar d v ari an ce u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a).

At t he sen te nc in g h eari ng , th e di st ric t cou rt app li ed W al ker an d d is cern ed no

ex po st fact o v io la ti on

. The co ur t ad op te d th e PSR’s Gui de li ne s ran ge of 21 to 27

m on th s’ imp ris on m en t. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Jo ne s to 27 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. In arri vi ng at th i s s e n t e n c e, th e di st ric t co ur t st at ed th at it ha d

“ care fu ll y co ns id ered each an d ev ery fact or u n d e r 1 8 Uni te d St at es Co de se ct io n 35 53 (a).” Tran s c r i pt of Sen te nc in g at 19 , Uni te d St at es v. Jo ne s , No. 6: 11 -cr- 02 01 4- LRR-2 (N.D. Io wa Oct. 4, 20 16 ), ECF No. 17 5. It al so ack no wled ge d Jo ne s’s arg um en t fo r a do wnwar d va ria nc e an d ex pl ai ne d w h y it de cl in ed to va ry do wnwar d. Sp eci fi c a l l y, i t fo un d no un warra nt ed di sp ari ty be twee n Jo ne s an d hi s

co de fen da nt Asa Ada m s. Ada m s ha d rece iv ed a se nt en ce of 16 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. The co ur t no te d im po rta nt di st in ct io ns be twee n th e two cas es

. Unl ik e Ada m s, th e co ur t f

o u n d t ha t Jo ne s ha d pr io r cri m in al co nv ic ti on s fo r do m es ti c vi ol en ce an d po ss es si on of m ari juan a. Add it io na ll y, u n l ik e Ada m s, who “ cam e to

co ur t an d to ok res po ns ib il it y fo r hi s act io ns ,” id

. at 2 0 , “J o ne s was a fu gi ti ve fro m jus ti ce” who “ kn ew fo r su re th at th ere was a fed eral m at te r th at he ne ed ed to res po nd
to ,” y et de cl in ed to do so an d wen t “ on th e la m

. . . pu tt in g th e m ars ha ls to ex tra ti m e

an d ex pe ns e to tra ck hi m do wn.” Id

. at 21

. Fu rth er, th e co ur t no te d t h a t a l t h o ug h Ada m s in it ia ll y rece iv ed a lo wer se nt en ce, hi s se nt en ce in crea se d du e to su bs eq ue nt vi ol at io ns of supe rvis ed rel eas e. In fact
, Ada m s ha s act ua ll y se rv ed si gn ifi can tl y m or e ti m e th an th e se nt en ce i m po se d u po n J on es

.

-3

-As to Jo ne s’s em pl oym en t hi st or y , t h e c o ur t no te d th at , co nt rary to Jo ne s’s cl ai m s of co nt in ue d em

pl oym en t, so ci al se cu rit y reco rd s sh o w e d n o earn in gs “ fo r 20 07 , 20 11 , 20 13 , 20 14 , an d 20 15

. He ha s $4 ,99 4 of earn in gs rep or te d in 20 12 , bu t he ha sn ’t rep or te d an y wor k du rin g th at pe rio d.” Id

. at 22

. As a res ul t, th e co ur t fo un d

“ a real di sc on ne ct be twee n wha t he sa y s he ’s b e e n d oi ng an d wha t th e ob jecti ve

reco rd s sh ow.” Id

. Fi na ll y , th e co ur t co ns id ered Jo ne s’s ed u c a ti on , hi st or y of

m ari juan a ab us e, an d fa m il y

su pp or t b efo re i m

po si ng th e 2 7- m on th sen te nc e.

The di st ric t co ur t

ad d[ ed ] pa ren th et ic al ly th at in th e ev en t th e Eig ht h C i r c ui t Co ur t of App eal s sh ou ld fin d in th e fu tu re th at [th e co ur t] ha [s ] in co rrec tl y sc or ed t h e fo ur -le ve l [en ha nc em en t] .

. . , [ th e] s en te nc e wou ld be ex act l y t h e
sa m e whe n [th e co ur t] vi ew[s ] the ag grav at in g fact or s, th e fu gi ti ve st at us of Mr. Jo ne s, an d th e fact s an d ci rcu m st an ces in th e of fen se c o n d u ct pa rag rap h 5 as we ll as h is cri m in al hi st or y

.

Id . at 2 4– 25

.

II. Dis cu ss io n On ap pe al
, Jo ne s arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s ap pl ic a t i o n of th e fo ur -le ve l

se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en t un de r U.S.S.G. § 2K2 .1(b )(6 )(B) fo r po ss es si ng a fir earm in co nn ect io n wit h an ot he r fel on y of fen se co ns ti tu te s im

pe rm is si bl e do ub le co un ti ng

an d vi ol at es th e Ex Po st Fact o Cl a u se of th e Uni te d St at es Co ns ti tu ti on

. He al so arg ue s t ha t h is sen te nc e is su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

.

A. U.S.S .G. § 2 K2 .1(b

)(6 )(B) W e fir st ad dr es s Jo ne s’s argu m en t th at th e di st ric t cou rt erre d in ap pl y in g th e fo ur -le ve l en ha nc em en t un de r U.S.S.G. § 2K2 .1(b )(6 )(B) to hi s st at e co nv ic ti on fo r

carr y in g weap on s, in vi ol at io n of Io wa Co de § 72 4.4 (1 ), be cau se it co ns ti tu te s do ub le

co un ti ng

.

-4

-“ W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s co ns tru ct io n an d ap pl ic at io n of th e se nt en ci ng

gu id el in es de no vo , an d we rev ie w it s fact ua l fin di ng s reg ard in g en ha nc em en ts fo r cl ear erro r.” Uni te d St at es v. Co rd y , 56 0 F.3 d 80 8, 81 7 (8t h Cir. 20 09 ). “ W e rev ie w de no vo whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t’s ap pl ic at io n of th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es am ou nt s to im pe rm is si bl e do ub le co un ti ng .” Uni te d St at es v. Peck
, 49 6 F.3 d 88 5, 89 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ).

The Gui de li ne s pro vi de th at th e fo ur -le ve l en ha nc em en t at iss ue is warra nt ed “[i ]f t h e de fen da nt

. . . us ed or po ss es se d an y fir earm or am m un it io n in co nn ect i o n wit h a no th er fe lo ny offen se ; o r po ss es se d o r tr an sf erre d a ny fir earm or am m un it io n wit h kn owl ed ge , in te nt , or reas on to be li ev e th at it wou ld be us ed or po ss es se d in

co nn ect io n wit

h an oth er fe lony of

fen se .” U.S.S.G. § 2K2 .1(b )(6 )(B)

. “ Ano th er fel on y of fen se ” is de fin ed as “ an y

Fed eral , st at e, or lo cal off en se , o th er th an th e ex pl os iv e

or fir earm s po ss es si on or tra ffi ck in g of fen se , pu ni sh ab le by im

pr is on m en t fo r a te rm

ex ceed in g on e y ear, reg ard le ss of whe th er a cri m in al ch arg e was br ou gh t, or a

co nv ic ti on ob ta in ed .” U.S.S.G. § 2 K2.1 cm t. n .14 (C).

In W al ker
, th e de fen da nt w a s c on vi ct ed of be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm

. 77 1 F.3 d at 45 0. The de fen da nt ’s PSR reco m m en de d ap pl ic at io n of th e fo ur

le ve l en ha nc em en t un de r § 2K2 .1(b )(6 )(B)

. Id

. at 45 1. At se nt en ci ng , th e go ve rn m en t
arg ue d th at th e de fen da nt ’s co nd uc t “ vi ol at ed Io wa Co de § 72 4.4 (1 ), an ag gr av at ed

m is de m ean or th at q u a l i f

i es as ‘ano th er fel on y of

fen se ’ be cau se it is pu ni sh ab le by im pr is on m en t for up to two y ears .” Id

. The di st ric t co ur t im po se d th e en ha nc em en t,

an d th e de fen da nt ap pe al ed

. I d

. W e up he ld th e im

po si ti on of th e en ha nc em en t, reject in g th e arg um en t th at th e ap pl ic at io n of th e en ha nc em en t co ns ti tu te s do ub le

co un ti ng :

[The de fen da nt ] w a s no t “ do om ed to au to m at ic al ly co m m it th e ad di ti on al fel on y whe n he vi ol at ed 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) by po ss es si ng a fir earm as a fel on .” [ Uni te d St at es v. Ja cks on , 63 3 F.3 d 70 3 , 7 0 7 ( 8t h Ci r. 20 11 ).] Io wa Co de § 72 4.4 (1 ), un li ke 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g)
, req ui res

-5

-pr oo f th at th e de fen da nt wen t arm ed “ wit h a da ng er o u s weap on

co nc ea le d on or ab ou t th e pe rs on ,” or wen t arme d w i th a ha nd gu n

“ wi th in th e li mit

s o f an y ci ty ,” or “ kn ow in gl

y carr ie [d ] or tra ns po rt[ ed ] [a ha nd gu n] in a veh ic le .” (Em ph as is ad de d)

. Thu s, § 72 4.4 (1 ) do es no t fal l wit hi n th e n a rro w Not e 14 (C) ex cl us io n fo r “ th e

. . . fir earm s po ss es si on . . . offen se ” (em ph as is ad de d) , a nd ap pl y in g th e fo ur -le ve l

en ha nc em en t in U.S.S.G. § 2K2 .1(b )(6 ) do es no t im pl ic at e th e “ do ub le

co un ti ng ” co nc ern s un de rlyin g ou r de ci si on in [ Uni te d St at es v. ] Li nd qu is t , 42 1 F.3 d [7 51 ,] 75 6 [(8 th Ci r. 20 05 )]. Rat he r, [th e de fen da nt ]

“ us ed

. . . [ th e] fi rear m

. . . i n c o n ne ct io n wit h an ot he r fel on y of fen se ” whe n he was inv ol ve d i n t he sh oo ti ng at 1 40 5 Id ah o Stre et

. The refo re, th e d is tri ct co ur t d id no t er r in im po si ng th e fo ur -le ve l en ha nc em en t.

Id

. at 45 2– 53 (th ird
, fo ur th
, fif th
, an d te nt h al te r at io ns in or ig in al ) (el li ps es in

or ig in al ).

W e ha ve rep eat ed ly reaf fir m ed ou r ho ld in g in Wa lk er an d reject ed th e arg um en t th at ap pl ic at io n of th e en ha nc em en t to Io wa Co de § 7 2 4

. 4( 1) co ns ti tu te s do ub le co un ti ng

. Se e, e.g

. , Uni te d St at es v. Mal do na do
, 86 4 F.3 d 89 3, 90 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ); Uni te d St at es v. Par ro w , 84 4 F.3 d 80 1, 80 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (p er cu ria m ); Uni te d St at es v. Hick

s , 6 68 F. App ’x 6 83 , 6 85 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (p er cu ria m ); Uni te d St at es v. Davi s , 66 7 F . App ’x 58 4, 5 85 (8t h C ir. 2 01 6) (pe r cu ria m ).

Jo ne s ne xt arg ue s th at im po si ti on o f th e fo ur -le ve l en ha nc em en t vi ol at es th e Ex Po st Fact o Cl au se be cau se W al ker be cam e ci rcu it la w aft er he c om m it te d th e

un de rlyin g of

fen se

. J o n e s i s in co rrec t. “ The ex po st fact o cl au se do es no t ap pl y to
act io ns by th e jud ic ia ry

. . . .” Uni te d St a t e s v

. W ad e , 43 5 F.3 d 82 9, 83 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (p er cu ria m ).

A c c or di ng ly, we ho ld th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in ap pl y in g th e fo u r

le ve l en ha nc em en t.

-6

-B. Su bs ta nt iv e Rea so na bl en es s

Jo ne s arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t im po se d an un reas on ab le se nt en ce in li gh t of al l th e 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) fact or s, in cl ud in g th e ne ed fo r hi s pu ni sh m en t to be in
pr op or ti on to th at of hi s co de fen da nt , wh o r e cei ve d a m or e le ni en t se nt en ce of 16

m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t.

Bec au se Jo ne s’s 27 -m on th se nt en c e i s wit hi n th e Gui de li ne s ran ge , we m ay ap pl y “ a pr es um

pt io n of rea s o na bl en es s” to hi s se nt en ce. Uni te d St at es v. Bau er , 62 6 F.3 d 10 04 , 1 01 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). Jo ne s m us t re bu t t hi s p res um

pt io n. Peck , 4 96 F.3 d a t 8 91

.

The reco rd sh ows th at t h e d i s t r ic t co ur t care fu ll y co ns id ered al l of th e § 3 5 5 3 (a) fact or s in arri vi ng at Jo ne s’s Gui de li ne s se nt en ce. The co ur t co ns id ered Jo ne s’s arg um en t th at h i s s e n t en ce crea te d an un warra nt ed se nt en ci ng di sp ari ty be twee n hi m se lf an d hi s co de fen da nt an d reject ed it
, fin di ng m ean in gf ul di st in ct io ns be tw e e n th e two de fen da nt s’ cas es

. The co ur t in di vi du al ly as se ss ed Jo ne s’s cas e ba se d on it s pa rti cu la r fact s. On th is reco rd
, we co nc lu de th at th e 27 -m on th se nt en ce is no t un reas on ab le

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. St ul ts , 57 5 F.3 d 83 4, 84 9 ( 8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (“ W he re th e di st ric t c o u r t i n im po si ng a se nt en ce m ak es ‘an in di vi du al iz ed

as se ss m en t ba se d on th e fact s pr es e n t e d
, ’ ad dr es si ng th e de fen da nt ’s pr of fere d in fo rm at io n in it s co ns id erat io n of th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s, su ch se nt e n c e is no t

un reas on ab le .” (q uo ti ng Gal l v. Un it ed St at es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 5 0 (2 00 7) )).

III. Co nc lu si on Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-7

-